AroFlo MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the GET operation, payload reduction options (compact, select), and mode variations (data/verbose/debug/raw). It does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling behaviors that would help an agent predict failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the essential GET operation, but packs multiple syntax examples, parameter explanations, and a documentation reference into a single run-on sentence. This reduces scannability and requires parsing to extract specific parameter requirements.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 18 parameters and complex query capabilities, the description covers the essential query syntax but leaves many boolean flags and pagination controls (maxPages, maxItemsTotal, validateWhere, extra) undocumented. Given that output schema exists and annotations provide safety context, this is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by explaining the pipe-delimited syntax for where/order/join parameters, the mode enum values, and the select array format. While pagination parameters (page, pageSize, autoPaginate) remain unexplained, the description successfully documents the complex, domain-specific query parameters that would otherwise be opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the verb (Query), resource (WorkOrderLineItems), and HTTP method (GET), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'aroflo_get_workorders'. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify the relationship between work orders and their line items, leaving minor ambiguity for users unfamiliar with the domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides detailed syntax guidance for WHERE, ORDER, and JOIN clauses, and references documentation resources. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., aroflo_get_workorders) or when to use the generic aroflo_query_zone instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.